FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: caitlyn
Well, point one is somewhat subjective. I can't say that I have any real objection to Chief Justice Roberts, but Chief Justice Alito sways a bit to far towards the power of the Presidency for my tastes.
Perhaps. As my comment above to DomKen points out, one's perception of how good either one is, will depend to a large extent on one's surrounding belief patterns.
I just look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg and shudder in pain, for example. And it has nothing to do with her looks. Stephen Breyer is another of my "not favs".
quote:
ORIGINAL: caitlyn
Point two, I will completely differ on. I would imagine the rest of the world was well aware of the military might of the United States. The notion that we would use it when our interests dictate should be pretty clear, after having practiced this policy for over two-hundred years. Any gain from this "reminder" was lost in the idea as percieved by the world, that the United States used it's power wrecklessly. Debating if it was or wasn't wreckless is a topic for another post ... a reminder is perception, and if you are going to consider the perception of the reminder, you have to also consider the perception of wreckless behavior.
As this relates to Americans, again we need not discuss specific points of faulty intelligence, etc ... as this will just lead us off target. The overriding truth is that many, possibly most, Americans feel that war should be a last alternative, only to be used when all else fails. Slow to anger, some might say. I think even those willing to keep an open mind on the reason we went to war, might point out that the rush to war went against what has been established as as the will of the American people.
Well, I'm not sure we really disagree or not. From my perception, we meet all the criteria you gave.
You say that " the rest of the world was well aware of the military might of the United States", and I wouldn't dispute that. What I said was that he reminded the rest of the world that the US has limits, and will actually use its power if pressed to far..
The problem with being a superpower, and just ... gosh, golly, just so damn nice and unassuming ... is that some in the world think that it's might is just an empty threat, the US a "paper tiger". That's exactly what OsBinL et al said, prior to Afghanistan, and Iraq. My point is that about once a generation, there are some advantages to showing the tyrants who start to believe their own rhetoric about this particular "paper tiger" that they should have intense periods of cold sweats and cases of heebie jeebies when they contemplate actually doing something that the US has made a firm commitment to action on (for example ... China invading Taiwan, or North Korea attacking Japan, or even something as simple as killing US tourists to "prove a point".).
As far as "perceptions" ... I reiterate my point ... tis better to be feared than loved in this particular environment. Don't be mislead to believe everything you read about how much everyone hates us, anyway. I think you'd be surprised how differently some leaders talk to their public, and what they say to US representatives privately.
Remember ... nations don't have friends. Nations have interests.
Next point ...
"Slow to anger ...", "last resort ...". Nothing wrong with that, but I think we meet this criteria in our current conflicts, if you see them are part of a conflict that started with the seizure of the American diplomatic hostages in the 1980s, and continued over the next 25 odd years. Many Americans lost their lives before 9-11, and the "paper tiger" concept was born among the ideologists we are now engaged in combat.
The current "war" isn't the "Iraqi war", really. The Iraqi war is just part of a larger strategy to turn the tide of an advancing ideology. I'm not particularly interested in debating the morality, legality, et al of it either, and I'm not. But from a strictly cold hearted real politic approach, it has, and is serving its purpose.
quote:
ORIGINAL: caitlyn
Point three is something that has been the path of the nation for quite some time. I don't really feel this is something that President Bush can hang his hat on ... although I will yield the accuracy of your point. The question then becomes, is this what the nation really wants? If you took a poll of Americans, how many do you suppose would be willing to spare one life for the spead of democracy? Many might feel it is our system, that works well in our republic, and have no further goals.
"how many do you suppose would be willing to spare one life for the spead of democracy?"
One of the things that amazes me is how the liberal (in all it's best meanings) desire and belief that all human beings deserve human rights, and political freedom has become something of an insult nowadays.
The reality is that it is in the US's long term national interest is to see that the peoples of as many nations as possible have those same rights and expectations that Americans enjoy.
It's just icing on the cake to me that I think it's the morally correct belief as well.
The biggest problem with "multiculturalism" is that any society that embraces it as it is generally practiced today means the ultimate destruction of that society. I don't believe in "multiculturalism". I believe in cultural toleration.
quote:
ORIGINAL: caitlyn
Thank you for the response.
NP. I enjoy discussing things with you.
Firm
< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 3/12/2008 3:01:47 PM >
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: Got something to say about the Bush years ? - 
Profile
.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread